Enable or pause ad

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already cover mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds little behavioral context beyond the operation itself, although the parenthetical 'within its ad group' clarifies the required relationship between ad_id and ad_group_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, scope, and possible states are all front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds the necessary ad-group relationship without bloating the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple status-setter with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, the target resource, the allowed states, and the parent scope. The main missing piece is explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling status tools, but the name and resource wording make that reasonably inferable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries part of the parameter-explanation burden. It adds the useful clue that the ad lives 'within its ad group,' which helps explain ad_group_id, but it does not elaborate on ad_id or the meaning of the status values beyond what the enum already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set an ad ... to ENABLED or PAUSED.' It clearly identifies the object as an individual ad, scoped 'within its ad group,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like set_ad_group_status and set_campaign_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the resource type and title: this tool is for enabling or pausing a single ad. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus sibling status tools like set_ad_group_status or set_campaign_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.